Will Self Thread

Looks Matter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06fpcgd

Touches on Fat Acceptance and identity politics.

nah we was one of the "terrorist attacks are bad but maybe we should stop drawing pictures" people after Charlie Hebdo
should be marked for death imo

Daily reminder that gaskun believes himself a better writer than Will Self.

Haven't read anything by him, but I'm pretty hyped for Umbrella which I'll get for christmas.

>>7457529
Will Self hype is starting again? Is this an annual shill?

>>7457539
Serious question, why is he wrong. Those pictures aren't funny, they don't enrich us in any way, they don't make you think about anything. Why should we keep drawing stupid pictures that makes people so mad they kill themselves in order to kill us.

In before free speech: what's the point if that speech is retarded. I am an atheist but I don't see why ridiculing people's personal beliefs is such a great thing.

>>7457638
Because he's so intellectually degenerate that he defaults to fictitious ideological dichotomies

>>7457638
this desu

pope francis touched on this in his homily after the attacks.

the important thing to keep in perspective is that the images weren't of mohammed, they were of mohammed preparing himself to be sodomised. a fact that liberals and the msm seem to neglect or be wholly ignorant of.

I'm all for free speech, but what charlie hebdo did was a clear example of provocation. Hate speech bears its consequences.

>>7457656

fuck off with the degeneracy buzzword shit ffs

>>7457529
Can you tell me what's so great about Umbrella? I mean to get me hyped for that book. Reviews makes look great, but sometimes when /lit/ positively describes book, it looks fucking great.

Hype me, pls.

>>7457638
i agree that such images are generally artistically worthless, but i also don't give a fuck if people want to draw them or not. plenty of things in this world are artistically worthless.

>>7457552

who?

>>7457666
Just look at the reviews for it - by actual critics; not the children on Goodreads and Amazon.

E.g.: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/19/umbrella-will-self-review

i dunno about greatest living writer - pynchon? gass? delillo? rushdie? etc

he's really good though, umbrellas is indeed great as is book of dave imo

>>7457669
It's not about what you give a fuck about. It's about the fact that the images were quite obviously going to offend a massive group of people the majority of whom have never harmed anyone and don't deserve it. When satire isn't directed at the powerful it ceases to be satire and becomes mere bullying.

>>7457684
Rushdie? He's good but no.

Pynchon and Gass: yes, definitely up there in terms of skill.

Delillo is a close competitor for sure. What I'm saying about Will Self though that I think makes him important is his public personae. He's not just a guy who writes books; he's a thinker, and of a particularly literary kind. He cares about literature in it's widest sense.

>>7457689
i understand your point that there are many muslims in the western world who hold no power, but to imply that islam is a totally marginalized group is ridiculous. are you telling me that fucking saudi arabia has no power?

>>7457714
Saudi Arabia consists of powerful Muslims oppressing weaker Muslims below them. There is no necessary connection between Islam and power, so attacks on Islam itself are well wide of the mark.

>>7457529

Holy shit, this speech is pure filler. Could someone give me the tl;dl?

I don't blame him, they wanted an hour of entertainment. I blame the idiots who think you need an hour to introduce or even discuss the technical details of an idea produced by the humanities.

"And so... my brechtian placard would read... 'Utopia is not reachable'."

Wow, thank you for this insight, Mister Self, it changes everything.

>>7457702

i agree with the public figure bit, i do wish there were more academics, writers etc who tried to be public figures and helped change discourse for the better (maybe there are but they dont get the airtime)

>Will Self gave a talk at my university in which he read passages from one of his upcoming novels and gave a general disquisition on the state of affairs in art and politics today
>questions as the end
>two people ask fairly obvious, predictable questions
>"last question!"
>I shoot my hand up, hoping to get an opportunity to say anything, just anything, to Will Self, if only for bragging rights
>get picked
>don't even know what to say
>start rambling about Céline, drugs, obscenity
>forget what I'm on about
>randomly declare, "We live in a new age of puritanism!"
>realize I've spoken total garbage and haven't even asked a coherent question
>Will Self interrupts me, says. "I think what this pernickety young man is trying to say..."
>can't even hear anymore, go red
>realize Will Self just publicly denounced me as a "pernickity young man"
>"a pernickity young man"

People in the audience later said they felt sorry for me.

>>7457884
The cringe is so strong I really hope this is fiction

>>7457884

this is 100% how i imagine /lit/ desu

>>7457672
Gaskun.

He does the readings for his own audiobook..... and they're bloody good. Just finished listening to book of Dave whilst at work and it was absolutely fantastic.

Only thing I hate about him is that he's dismissive of Jeremy Corbyn

>>7457728
Just as there's no necessary connection between whiteness, maleness, Christianity, heterosexuality, cissexuality, etc, and power? Just for the record.

Surprised that Cambridge graduate who's always extremely condescending toward Self for performing relatively poorly at Oxford hasn't shown up yet.

>>7457884
>pernickity
nothing wrong with this

>>7457662
>we should walk on eggshells around violent ideologies

kill yourself faggot

>>7457539

Sure, you know I agree with him there. If you don't want pissed off Muslims bombing you don't draw those pictures, seems simple right?

There should never be law enforcing that you cannot draw these pictures however, that is when it has gone too far.

>>7457662
Of course hate speech bears consequences but those consequences obviously shouldn't include death.

>>7457689
>drawing pictures is worse than murder

fucking kill yourself

>>7458001

Over what? Non Britfag here, but Corbyn seems like the ideal leader of the left to me, at least so long as he never gets power. Ideal opposition leader and all that.

>>7458111

Not if you're working on the principles of "talk shit get hit"

>>7458116
Not British either, but fuck you, we need more people like him in positions of power.

>>7458118
In his professional life as MP he has been completely incapable of convincing detractors to agree with him, or even form any sort of consensus on the issues he blunders in to. As much as I like him he will never hold any power and is incapable of leadership

>>7458128
Uhh yeah warmongers and corporate shills are so much better at leading than he would be,s ure

>>7458118

What this guy >>7458128 said.

Corbyn won't be able to do what he wants in Parliament without a total majority which just isn't going to happen. A coalition might happen though (lib dems or SNP maybe, though SNP is doubtful based on how the constituencies line up.) This ends up with good labour policies with some compromise, but Corbyn still gets shit done, this is what I was referring to you ad hominem slinging prick. I admit I phrased it wrong to express this point though.

>>7457529
>better than Pynchon
>better than Gass
lolno

The best living writer isn't writing in English you niggers (isn't writing in French either btw)

>>7458148
Well anyway Will Self thinks he has no chance at becoming PM, and that mentality is just a stupid self-fulfilling prophecy

>>7458171
Or maybe is the lucid and informed opinion of a guy with a lot of experience/knowledge of both British left-wing politics, British society and Westminster shenanigans.

>>7458215
Or of a guy who has a voice on the national stage and is capable of influencing public opinion to at least some small degree

>>7458157

hmmm lemme guess...hungarian?

i enjoyed him on shooting stars

>>7458157
>The best living writer isn't writing in English
so who gives a fuck?

>>7458282
no not him

>>7458290

who then? i felt good with my krasznahorkai guess desu

>>7458281
He's not even a member of the Labour party anymore. Why do to expect him to do the equivalent of soil himself in public and tow the party line?

>>7458171

might also have something to do with corbyn's approval ratings being worse than michael foot's

>>7458020
Exactly.

>>7457884
He acknowledge you!? Jelly

>>7458001
No he isn't? He likes Corbyn. he just he's too unelectable to become prime minister. That's a condemnation of the status quo, not Corbyn.

>>7458281
If you watch the video in the OP you'll that Will no longer gives a shit about trying to influence people

>>7457689
This is a good point in general but a religion with over 1 billion adherents is not some meek, fragile institution. Same goes for Christianity. Only difference is one of these religions isn't so sensitive to feel the need to murder civilians in retaliation.

And to act like this drawing warranted a "response" is right, but should have never included violence.

>>7457638
>>7457662
>>7457689
it's a fucking drawing
Islam is an ideology like any other, it deserves no more respect than you give to fascism, communism, scientology etc

>>7457638
>>7457662
>>7457689
Ideological fascists

>>7458117
that's not "talk shit get hit"
that's "talk shit get murdered"

>>7458299
Javier Marias

>>7459263
Just making sure, b/c some people feel imaginary privilege rankings are reason enough to be disrespectful toward others based on race, religion, nationality, sexuality, gender, etc.

>>7459655
It's the rule of the streets

>>7460341
>best living writer
>does not name me
ok :|

>>7460360
Sorry Tao/Kolsti/Tommy/whoever

>>7460341
Im reading Cuando fui Mortal and enjoying i. can you recommend more from him?

>>7457662
>>7457638
>>7457689
>being this retarded

The attacks prove the value of free speech. Human beings have actually been killed simply for cartoons. Any group or value that has people believing such an act is all right, needs to be criticized. One should also consider the stupidity of "hate speech." There cannot be free speech without "hate speech." A free society needs "hate speech" because anything can evidently be "hateful."

>>7460364
it's ok :/

>>7457662
>draw some mean pictures
>deserves to be shot
Great logic.

>>7460357
It's really not but it's cute that you think that.

>Will Self

Someone should bring the Hebrew hammer down on this guy.

>>7461716
You're about to get murdered, buddy.

Anyone else think Self could be Not Bill Murray?

>>7457662
>>7457638
Offensive and stupid opinions are the dark side of free speech. But they're an essential, NECESSARY side.

The istant you start censoring someone because his opinion "isn't funny, doesn't enrich us in any way", etc., is the istant you don't have free speech anymore. The dam broke.
From that point on, everyone has the right to censor others for some reason or another, and there is no way of determining if those reasons are legitimate or not.

You say they should stop drawing mohammed because it's a useless provocation? I say feminism should be made illegal because I find it irritating and useless. And liberalism too. Or maybe conservatism. Anything can get banned, and from that point on, the people with the most authority decide what can or cannot be said.
You're living in a fascist regime.
All because you were too fucking stupid to understand the basics of democracy.

Also: if our child throws a tantrum because he wants to eat only ice cream, letting him do it is not tolerance, it's just you being a coward and looking for excuses to not sound weak. Muslims should accept opinions they find offensive as a matter of principle, not because we enjoy insulting them.

>>7461484
You're exactly the kind of person Self is talking about

>>7462282
You're completely missing his point. But this kind of reactionary knee-jerk pushback is exactly what he's talking about

>>7462486
>>7462508
I'm neither of them. I'm genuinely interested in what's Self's opinion and reasoning if you can explain it.

>>7462515
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31442441

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNbn_QeY4Dk


It's not a matter of free speech = good vs. free speech = bad; it's about getting out of that idiotic false dichotomy and realising is just a normal value among many and we should stop treating it like some divine transcendental gift.

>>7462555
Thank you. I believe I watched this video beforehand but I didn't know who Will Self was then. I'll look at them.

>>7461359
Your Face Tomorrow trilogy

>>7462486
>>7462508
so what is the point?
we should stop drawing cartoons that offend an authoritarian and violent ideology?

File: 312424325.jpg (45KB, 350x461px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 350x461px

>>7464644
>should
>still believes in moral imperatives

>>7457529
Liked his essay on chipotle burritos.

Actually, no, wait, I didn't. But I still like Will Self.

>>7458046
He's probably killed himelf.

>>7468089
Why do you think so?

>>7468089
>>7468972
Bump for the answer to this question

>>7468972
Will Self is a successful writer. Cambridge guy has a piece of paper that says 'Well done' on it.

>>7457662
Larry David pissed on a portrait of Christ in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm and my mom spent 20 minutes lecturing me how "the jew" has no respect for Christianity and how Christians in the US are persecuted etc. She still watched the next week's episode and laughed.

You consider Charlie Hebdo to be provocative only because Islam has been co-opted by sadistic psychopaths. Don't blame Charlie Hebdo and people like Theo Van Gogh for exposing this.

>>7457638
Kill yourself. The point is that muslims in the west should understand that any one should be free to criticize any idea or draw any stupid cartoon. Anyone can arbitrarily be offended by anything, that doesn't mean they have the right to attack people.

>>7471500
No shit. You thoroughly destroyed nobody.

>>7471411
Fair enough.

>>7457638
>why should I defend someone else's freedom if I cannot find meaning in the act?

Is this really a question that people still have to ask in 2015? Throughout all time we've seen this is the greatest thing one can do: defend something not for its function but for its lack of (apparent) function. The natural human condition is greed and ego, of course. If you don't defend these seemingly outrageous acts by others, no one will defend what you consider meaningful in the future.

Sure it starts out crude like in this example, but next it's in a book someone is writing; he makes a crude joke about Mohammed or a repulsive drawing that is useful to his book in its context. Now, because you didn't fight for Charlie hebdo, THAT gets attacked with the same vitriol that the Charlie hebdo drawings were attacked with. All of a sudden, you realize meaning and worth are subjective, and it's better to just tell people in the first place to get the fuck over it, or else some day someone might be censoring you.

If you give a mouse a cookie...

>>7462555
I won't speak to the rest of self's writing because I haven't read it, but that vice article is shit tier. It's a classic 21st century move.

>The idea that the French secularists have of their political system (and for that matter the British secularists of theirs, the Americans ones of theirs, and so on), is that it not only encourages their best impulses, but that if it's perfected it will render the entire population supremely free and entirely good.

completely false here. The true irony is that he's saying the people who think absolute good is achievable through law are the ones who SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE that free speech always comes at a price and also generally acknowledge that humans cannot be universally good or bad. The hebdo incident is the price we pay for free speech. I don't even understand his logic for this part. What makes him think secularists are any more idealistic than non-secularists (word?)?

>our society makes a fetish of "the right to free speech" without ever questioning what sort of responsibilities are implied by this right

Not really sure what he's getting at. The word freedom itself is at odds with responsibilities. Obviously, the hope is that the creme will rise to the top if we take the laissez faire approach.

Directly after:
>But then it also makes a fetish of "freedom" conceived of as agency worthy of a Nietzschean Ubermensch – whereas the truth of the matter is, as most of us understand only too well, we are in fact grossly constrained in most of what we do, most of the time – and a major part of what constrains us are our murderous, animal instincts.

"You think you're free, but you're not, so you shouldn't mind giving up these freedoms you still happen to have." Am I reading that right? And then he ends with a nice meme, flipping shit on its head (classic move in 21st century) and saying our instincts are what constrain us rather than societal norms and laws?

>>7457539
>>7457638

self just seems to be saying with great power comes great responsibility, he never said we should censor shit but took the moment to shine a light on hebdo and said essentially they're shit satirist (basically degraded their work in the same manner most of the world sees 4chan). i don't think he's pro or against free speech blanketly but that we should be more critical before lionizing so as to prevent this from happening again.

>>7473052
But that's exactly why it's so important to defend them: their satire is shit. If whom we defend comes down to whose artwork is better then the battle is already lost.

>>7473072
i don't think we should be so quick to defend every work of art just on principle. they were doing something stupid, something extremely horrible happened to them in response. we can villianize the evil without glorifying the stupidity that brought it. this isn't a call for censorship, but i think self is right in that some critical thought should be taken after this. now self isn't and neither do i think the courts should be brought into this to settle whose art should be defended. the public should decry such banal rustling of jimmies, if only to elevate the art.

>>7473082
lol yeah they wrote bad satire so it's THEIR fault they got raped, and we should definitely berate THEM over getting murdered for wearing slutty satirical clothes in a dark alleyway at midnight

>>7461704
They do. I certainly won't cry over their garbage works or lives.

>>7473082
I think we have similar opinions. It's more philosophical, it seems. I just think we should always err on the side of defending them too much if anything. Because what do you lose? Oh you defend a crappy 'artwork'. Whatever. Being complacent, though, you can invalidate a life and lose free speech. And I feel like that's what Self is doing in the vice article. It's fine to say he doesn't appreciate their work. But all his other shit just seems downright weird and forced. Labeling secularists as the idealists of society might be the oddest part of it. It's like he's legitimately trying to argue against free speech. He says we don't acknowledge the responsibilities of it, but how is that possible? The hebdo incident is itself a responsibility of free speech. In fact it's the epitome of the responsibility.

>>7457529
FLOREAT EXON
L
O
R
E
A
T

E
X
O
N

>>7457532
I enjoyed this, thank you.

>>7472996
Thanks for an actual honest and intelligent reply instead of just "kill yourself" like most people here do when someone disagree with themselves even on matters of freedom of speech.

>>7457638
this post of yours isnt funny and doesnt enrich me about anything, although it does make me think about how much of an idiot you are

why do people like you keep posting despite the fact that you have nothing to post about?

>>7457684
>Rushdie

lol

if he didnt get that fatwa, nobody would pay attention to this hack

>>7473799
I asked a serious honest question and you respond to it with another question and a personal attack. You prove my point that people like you don't have any deep perspective on freedom of speech but just like having the freedom on shitting on other people.
I am all right for you shitting on me because you're a shit person.
I don't agree though that our society should move in a direction that glorifies shitting as a proper way of discussing problems. If my kids grow up I'm a shitty environment like the one you're creating right now they will be shit people like yourself.

People are not objects and they should be treated as such. Shit in your own house, with your friends not on the street, you're not making the world any better, just smellier.

If you have a problem with Muslims tell them what problems they are creating, let them know that they can be happy and morally correct without Allah and Muhammed. Acting like a pig only makes the whole world less civilised and valuable. It makes me ashamed to be of the same culture as you, as Muslims are ashamed to be in the same group with terrorists.

>>7457638
>In before free speech: what's the point if that speech is retarded
The point is that speech is free regardless of whether people think it's 'retarded', you idiot.

>>7457689
A group of a billion people who force their ideology on others wherever possible is quite powerful, dhimmi.

>>7473882
Then we shouldn't have free speech. I rather live in a civilised intelligent world than one where shit is glorified. If 4chan were to rule the world I would kill myself.

>>7473882
I didn't say we should censor it, just that we shouldn't glorify it. The world jesuischarlie thing was retarded. Charlie hebdo was shit and we shouldn't take pride in being shit.

>>7473806
Yeah it's not like his most famous, critically praised and successful work all predated the fatwa.

I mean, seriously /lit/, I am rused. Midnight's Children anon. Rushdie famous enough that Pakistani bookshops were running with Satanic Verses pride of place in their shop windows for a good week before word got around what was written in it.

Lolno, Pynchon's worst works blow him away

>>7473891
Fuck you. Try living in the Middle Ages you twat. You're either evil or completely idealistic and naive.

File: negro tip.jpg (66KB, 613x677px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 613x677px

>>7474958
>free speech is a good thing
>I may disagree with your statement and find it abhorrent but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!
>no matter how stupid or unqualified you are, you have the democratic right to voice your idiocy and influence others

>>7474958
Dude at least I have personal thought instead of automatically jumping on the standard normie ethical wagon without a minimum awareness of human history and how we got to this ideology.
I never say we should censor it, but people like you who swear and shit are really uncivilised brutes who bring down the level of humanity. It's fair that you should have a place to express yourself like here on 4chan. I just don't want you to shove your shit down the throat of civilised people.

>>7473044
I'd like to respond to this but your comprehension of his argument is woeful. I suggest reading it again.

>>7473124
You will never get the point if you keep succumbing to this retarded blame game.

>>7457529

>I'm beginning to come around to the belief that this guy is the greatest living writer

L O L

File: index.png (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>7474982
>free speech is a bad thing

File: RIDE ETERNAL, SHINY AND CHROME.jpg (21KB, 400x460px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x460px

>>7475741

Free speech is an enemy of the Samurai.

Free speech fears the Samurai.

>>7475071
Of course not. We currently have free speech, and much of this crap is relegated to 4chan. That's the ability of people to self-regulate. It's fine as is. And if, God forbid, you should come into contact with some of the sewage, you simply push it aside; ignore it. It's the same idea as preferring 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to jail. Philosophically it's better to err on the side of letting it enter the public sphere.

And just because I say dick, shit, nuts, cunt, whore or any other vulgar word doesn't invalid my opinion. If you really have to use that as an attack on 4chan then you opinion probably has no real value.

Also, reducing an opinion to a bandwagon is probably the most shallow argument to make. Nowhere do I appeal to authority or the masses. I just acknowledge that throughout history I think free speech has been better, and the masses have an ability to self-regulate.

>>7457638
>removing your right to free speech because you're scared of extremists

The UK has literally become Pakistan at this point.

>>7475451
If you're overwhelmed by the large post then we can go point by point. First:

>The problem for the staunch defenders of Western values is that each and every one of us possesses this capacity for evil – it's implicit in having an ego at all; so when the demonstrators stood in the Place de la Republique holding placards that read "JE SUIS CHARLIE", they might just as well have held ones reading: "NOUS SOMMES LES TERRORISTES".

Here is the first meaningful sentence after getting pleasantries out of the way, and he is implying that thought equals action. Already a falsehood. We are Charlie means we support Charlie. We are terrorists means we support terrorists. To flip the word "be" on its head just to make a point shows possibly a lack of understanding but more likely is just a post-modern writer trying too hard to be exactly that: post-modern. It misses the actual simple point: we support Charlie. Self's logical progression here seems to be: "je suis Charlie" -> they are not actually Charlie -> they are not terrorists -> they are capable of being both/either -> they are equal parts Charlie and terrorist. Thus, he ends up equating those two statements, but it's so painfully obvious what je suis Charlie actually means. It's just saying we support Charlie. There's no connection to be made there with supporting terrorism.

I know everyone is capable of good and bad. That's not new. This meme of "woah things are not what they seem doing X might as well be doing y" is just painful to read through.

>>7475884
Thanks for developing your thought in such a clear and readable way, I appreciate it.
The way you speak (or spoke before) doesn't logically invalidate your point but logic is only a part of convincing people about your beliefs. There's a reason the oratory art exists. It's hard to take seriously someone who speaks so badly and with that much swear words that are nothing more than emotionally charged filler words.

To get to the point though. I do agree that we've never had it better. But I believe that's because of technology not because free speech.
Again I have to be clear, I don't want censoring or laws. I would want a cultural change in how we treat human beings. I do think that the world would be better off without religion but ridiculing a making disgusting pictures of what people feel sacred helps absolutely nothing and it's just provoking.
Siding with people who do it makes you no better than them. And reacting so badly to this idea, like people did here saying to kill myself, to fuck myself, is like them getting angry for satirists attacking Muhammed. I attacked your ideas, your values and you got angry and personally attacked me. Yet you guys still don't see the irony of it all or don't understand the lessons. I feel like you're attached to the idols of modern world without questioning them.
Free speech in the current form is an illusion. Saying stuff against what the masses believe gets you ostracised, like happened with me here, but it's much worse in real life. Being isolated by people makes you care less about them, so terrorists and killers are born. And I would be fine with that if great things came out of free speech but instead only mediocrity, platitudes and clichés come out.
The western world had become culturally and ideologically dead, stuck into a delusional democracy with unfair capitalism where special snowflakes can live and die their selfish lives without ever questioning if there is anything more to live than consuming. Even with free speech you can't rock the boat or else people will realise that we live in an unstable society, we're destroying our planet and we're really bad people. Yes all people are baddies, but we always forget to include ourselves.

Sorry for the rant, English isn't my first language either. I just think it would be a better world if we were nicer to each other.
>>7475884

>>7476542
China has all the technology we do, and its citizens ability to speak freely is more limited than ours. Part of technology is free speech, also. The American conception of Facebook involves it being a platform for mostly free speech. If Chinese Facebook is censored to a large degree then it ceases to be Facebook to a westerner; it becomes something else.

>siding with people who do it makes you no better than them
So the criminal defense lawyer is a criminal? The pig farmer is a pig? This is an incorrect association. No one says je suis Charlie if those people didn't get killed. The idea is the action against them so obviously outweighs what they did in the first place that that doesn't really matter. I don't view them as saints. I don't view them as anything. All I care for is the future. For the future's sake, it's important not to be more lax on those terrorists just because they were attacking Charlie hebdo 'satirists' instead of more esteemed writers.

>saying stuff against what masses believe gets you ostracized
Yes that's the ability of the human population to self-regulate. It's better than the alternative, which is leaving it up to the few most powerful people.

>only mediocrity, platitudes and clichés come out
You seem naive. What kind of things would be the first to go if free speech started to be limited more? You think the senseless bashing of the neighbor down the street or the kid in the other class would stop? Shit no. You say we're destroying our environment. Any and all research on that topic would be gagged.

But then again you say you don't even want laws changed, so it seems like you're really just lamenting the current situation. I don't think the world is perfect with free speech. I simply think it's better than the alternative.

>even with free speech you can't rock the boat
This is where I think I finally understand your opinion, and I disagree. "Even with free speech it's still challenging to rock the boat" is what I would say. Just compare that to the world without free speech, in which it's even harder to rock the boat. You're blaming all the current problems on the current system but aren't acknowledging that these problems run on scales, not binaries, and all (I believe) just get worse without free speech.

You can ignore the rest of my post if you want because that last segment is the important one. For you to say simply "you can't rock the boat even with free speech intact" shows you are disconnected from reality. You can rock the boat, and it would be much more challenging without free speech.

>>7475451
Fortunately there is no point to get, other than that some people were murdered,

>>7457529
>Here he is explaining why art can't change the world (in any significant way) (anymore):

Bullshit. Ban all music and then flood every piece of media with Gregorian Chant and watch how men are more peaceful in dealing with each other.

Art is universal because it appeals to something universal in human nature - the senses and emotions and sentiments. Wipe off all that garbage television and film that promotes women gossiping and committing adultery and flood tv and film with women as content and obedient housewives and let's see how the world changes.

>>7476709
Yeah you're right. Maybe I just hate thr current society and I blame it on the characteristics I know because I don't actually identify the primary reasons that make it so disguising to me. I am happy to live in the West but I feel that material wellbeing is far from the most important value. It was more than a rant than a well thought idea, you're right. I enjoyed your answer thanks.

>>7476709
>Yes that's the ability of the human population to self-regulate. It's better than the alternative, which is leaving it up to the few most powerful people.

You think that it isn't left up to a few powerful people in the West? The only difference is that our censorship is done by merchants who buy our politicians and media outlets, whereas in China it's done directly by those in power (a more honest approach). All "free speech" does is put public doctrine up for the highest bidder, like Democracy does for public rule. That's all it has ever been. It began in the 18th century when the Bourgeois journalists wanted "free speech" in order to publish their revolutionary and treasonous tracts against the Royal power.